W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Standards for inclusion/exclusion criteria ?

From: Kathrin Dentler <k.dentler@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:34:07 +0200
Message-ID: <51F2266F.6020800@vu.nl>
To: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@iscb.org>
CC: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hi Andrea,

I'm also sorry for the late reply. My colleagues have been working on a 
library of eligibility criteria to support the design of clinical trials 
[1]. The criteria are now online in a triple store and visualised / 
searchable [2].

Also, an article [3] has been published lately that analyses eligibility 
criteria representation in industry-standard clinical trial protocols, 
and the authors state that the criteria from clinicaltrials.gov (used in 
most studies) differ from criteria in original full-text criteria.

I hope it helps!

Best,
Kathrin


[1] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/postscript/EKAW2012.pdf
[2] http://semweb.cs.vu.nl/eligibility
[3] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046413000762




Op 7/22/13 11:09 PM, Andrea Splendiani schreef:
> HI,
>
> thanks and sorry for the late reply. I have been doing a bit of reading.
> Let's say I am up2date until more or less the date of your review (2007).
>
> First, I wonder if something new come out since then (rather than evolutions of approaches/standards already existing).
>
> Second, I got the impression that rationales to standardize clinical trials criteria vary a lot. Mining EHRs for candidates has different requirements from criteria re-use, which in turns has different requirements from (trials) discovery.
> I was looking for some sampling of criteria in use in clinical trials. Could not find anything (at least open). Does anybody have some pointer in this direction ?
>
>
> best,
> Andrea
>
>
>
> Il giorno 15/lug/2013, alle ore 07:21, Kathrin Dentler <k.dentler@vu.nl> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> For a first broad overview, this paper is a good starting point:
>> Formal representation of eligibility criteria: A literature review
>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046409001592
>>
>> For CDISC, there is ongoing work on OWL/RDF formats:
>> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/terminologyresources/cdisc
>> http://kerfors.blogspot.nl/2012/05/semantic-models-for-cdisc-based.html
>>
>> Best,
>> Kathrin
>>
>>
>>
>> Op 7/15/13 1:34 AM, Andrea Splendiani schreef:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was wondering if somebody could provide some pointer to work going on in an area that is related to clinical trials: inclusion and exclusion criteria.
>>> (I have followed the recent thread on encoding Hamilton Disease and pointers).
>>>
>>> In, particular, I am interested in two things:
>>> Standards with substantial uptake (sub question: is CDISC's uptake actual or perspective ?).
>>>
>>> Modeling of inclusion/exclusion criteria, but with a particular twist: not modeling the questions, but the facts that are queried. Basically I am interested in modeling patients and conditions (to the level of detail required "usually" required by clinical trials). The subject itself can be very vast, but is there a framework which provides at least an upper perspective on how to model subjects's features, diseases, interventions, samples (also respect to time) ?
>>>
>>> Any pointer is welcome!
>>>
>>> best,
>>> Andrea Splendiani
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Kathrin Dentler
>>
>> AI Department         |   Department of Medical Informatics
>> Faculty of Sciences   |   Academic Medical Center
>> Vrije Universiteit    |   Universiteit van Amsterdam
>> k.dentler@vu.nl       |   k.dentler@amc.uva.nl
>>
>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~kdr250/
>>
>>


-- 
Kathrin Dentler

AI Department         |   Department of Medical Informatics
Faculty of Sciences   |   Academic Medical Center
Vrije Universiteit    |   Universiteit van Amsterdam
k.dentler@vu.nl       |   k.dentler@amc.uva.nl

http://www.few.vu.nl/~kdr250/
Received on Friday, 26 July 2013 07:34:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:21:34 UTC